theory11 — Magic Tricks & the World's Finest Playing Cards

t11.audio - THE BOTTOM LINE with Chris Kenner + Jason England

Richard Turner, Gary Plants, Steve Forte, Darwin Ortiz, Gene Maze, and myself were mentioned in conjunction with the bottom deal.

The book with the trick Jason described that he couldn't remember is Lessons in Dishonesty by Laurie Ireland
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Aaron Shields said:
Richard Turner, Gary Plants, Steve Forte, Darwin Ortiz, Gene Maze, and myself were mentioned in conjunction with the bottom deal.

The book with the trick Jason described that he couldn't remember is Lessons in Dishonesty by Laurie Ireland
Click to expand...

Hey, thanks. I appreciate it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just a quick note that the static issue should now be resolved - give it a shot now and let us know if there are still issues with playback.
 
Does anyone know why Jason England uses pressure from the second finger in the Gene Maze's grip instead of using the pressure from the first finger?
 
Irving said:
Does anyone know why Jason England uses pressure from the second finger in the Gene Maze's grip instead of using the pressure from the first finger?
Click to expand...

Do you mean, why is the second finger round the front of the deck to support it, rather than just the first (as in mechanics grip)? If that is what you mean, then there are a number of benefits.

First, and most obviously, it provides more cover at the front of the deck.

Second, it makes the deal quieter, as the outer left card coming free from the first finger can make noise if you use the mechanics or master grip.

Third, this free outer left corner also makes the take smoother as it cuts down the points of contact between the deck and left hand. This enables strike deals and Erdnase-style push-outs, as opposed to buckle push-outs, which minimise left-finger movement.

I hope this is helpful, sorry if I didn't understand your question.
 
TeeDee said:
Do you mean, why is the second finger round the front of the deck to support it, rather than just the first (as in mechanics grip)? If that is what you mean, then there are a number of benefits.

First, and most obviously, it provides more cover at the front of the deck.

Second, it makes the deal quieter, as the outer left card coming free from the first finger can make noise if you use the mechanics or master grip.

Third, this free outer left corner also makes the take smoother as it cuts down the points of contact between the deck and left hand. This enables strike deals and Erdnase-style push-outs, as opposed to buckle push-outs, which minimise left-finger movement.

I hope this is helpful, sorry if I didn't understand your question.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your time and reply but you didn't understand the question indeed. Nothing terrible about it. You probably just didn't watch his 1-on-1. What i meant was as follows:

Jason England described 4 grips. The first one was the original Erdnase grip with second finger on right corner and index finger curled around the left corner. The second was Erdnase's first modified grip in which the first finger is not around the left corner but near the second finger to make the grip more natural. Then comes the second modification of the Erdnase, which is - Gene Maze grip. The last one is mechanics grip.

Now, about the 3rd one.
Finger positions are close to original Erdnase grip, but the second finger is not on the corner but near it on the short edge next to the index finger. In this position you don't have to buckle the card to let it go from the second finger (as in Erdnase original & 1mod). Because the second finger in on the short edge the right hand can strike the deck and take the card from the bottom of the deck. This solves the problem with the knuckle flash and is good for several bottoms in a row.

Yet, second finger applies pressure in order to keep the deck in place - between the second finger and the base of the thumb.

So, what the question was about... :)

Jason England said that Gene Maze applied pressure with the first finger. In other words, the deck was held between the index finger on the short edge and the base of the thumb. Mr.England doesn't use pressure from the first finger holding the deck between the base of the thumb and second finger.
The idea is - why doesn't he use the same pressures as Gene Maze?

Turned out to be a bit long, but hope you get the point. :)
Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, I see. I think I still managed to stumble to the answer even though I didn't really get the question.

If you grip the deck with the first finger, it makes it harder to extract the bottom card, because it's always going to put pressure on the outer left corner. This can add noise and reduce the smoothness of the take. To illustrate this for yourself, you can try a strike deal alternating between a first and second finger grip.

On a slightly different point, I disagree with what seems to be the consensus interpretation of the Erdnase bottom deal. As I read it, he specifically says that you push out the bottom card without buckling it. I get this from his description of the one-hand deal, where he says that the card is "sprung back a little" (which I interpret as "buckled"), whereas in the two-hand deal it is simply "pushed out". Having decided this, I then found that Steve Freeman and Dai Vernon teach this push-out rather than buckle technique on Revelations Volume 11. For this reason, and picking up on other details in the text, I interpret the Erdnase grip as being as you described the Gene Maze grip.
 
TeeDee said:
I interpret the Erdnase grip as being as you described the Gene Maze grip.
Click to expand...

I doubt it. Jason England with 20 years of practice and Gene Maze who has entire book about bottom deal alone simply couldn't misunderstand Erdnase's description.

Also, this is not my description of Gene Maze grip. That's how Jason England put it in his 1-on-1.

As for alternating the fingers, i didn't notice any differences in sound while taking the card. Maybe it is just a matter of feeling comfortable using this grip.. Whatever. Perhaps, i shall pm Mr.England. :)

Thanks for your help.
 
Irving said:
I doubt it. Jason England with 20 years of practice and Gene Maze who has entire book about bottom deal alone simply couldn't misunderstand Erdnase's description.
.
Click to expand...

Regardless of how much practice you've put in, or how much you've written on the subject, it doesn't change the description as written by Erdnase, and there is certainly room for differing interpretations.

In addition, Jason England (with 20 years of practice) performs the Erdnase two-hand bottom deal by buckling the card, whereas Dai Vernon and Steve Freeman teach it as a push-out with no buckle. One technique is wrong, so either Vernon or England can and have misunderstood Erdnase's description.
 
TeeDee said:
Regardless of how much practice you've put in, or how much you've written on the subject, it doesn't change the description as written by Erdnase, and there is certainly room for differing interpretations.

In addition, Jason England (with 20 years of practice) performs the Erdnase two-hand bottom deal by buckling the card, whereas Dai Vernon and Steve Freeman teach it as a push-out with no buckle. One technique is wrong, so either Vernon or England can and have misunderstood Erdnase's description.
Click to expand...

In this case i think we didn't understand each other correctly.

Here is my vision of the Erdnase grip. Because the second finger in holding the corner of the deck, a bottom card cannot be taken easily. Ring finger pushes up on the bottom card causing it to buckle and then pushes it out allowing the right hand to take the card. So, both buckling and pushing out actions take place.

What i am 100% sure about is that Erdnase and Gene Maze grips are not the same.
 
OK, I haven't got the Gene Maze book so I don't know how he describes his grip, but Erdnase's description is that the "middle of the first joint of the second finger" is against the corner. Now, based on the illustrations, this does allow for the possiblity that the pressure applied by this finger is predominantly on the front end of the deck. Therefore, a strike bottom is possible from this grip, or, as Erdnase describes, a push-out without a buckle.

In the description for the two-hand deal, he doesn't mention buckling the card, and then in the description of the one-hand deal, he says "instead of pushing out the bottom card as in the two-handed deal, it is sprung back a little by the third finger tip". I read "sprung back" as synonomous with "buckled". I think the only reason why people think it should be buckled in the two-handed deal is because it would make it easier if your grip was putting too much pressure on the side of the deck. If you accept that my interpretation of the push-out is correct, it follows that the front-pressure interpretation of the grip is probably also correct, as this would help facilitate it.

Anyway, I'm happy to agree there's no absolute definite answer to this kind of stuff, but I love playing with Erdnase techniques and trying to find my own subtleties.
 
Irving,

I use pressure from the second finger because I was used to holding the cards in the first modified-Erdnase grip. The transition to holding the deck in this manner and in the second modified-Erdnase grip was pretty easy for me, as long as I continued to use the second finger to provide pressure.

Also, the grip simply feels more comfortable to my hand that way. I have much larger hands than Gene did, so it's not surprising that I would make an adjustment for my hands when using that grip.

TeeDee,

From page 53 of The Expert at the Card Table: "Press up and slightly inwards against that card and push it out."

"Up" refers to upwards pressure with the third finger, not forward towards the front of the deck. "inwards" refers to the direction towards the performer.

If someone wanted to select some good words to describe a buckle, "upwards and inwards" would be a great way to describe the pressures involved. Of course, you can choose to read this any way you want. To me, it's a clear buckling action.

If Vernon and Freeman didn't do it this way on the Revelation DVDs, it's probably because they had made tiny adjustments to the Erdnase grip over time and didn't need to do it any more. Refinements like this are not uncommon among folks that have spent decades with a move.

I've discussed the bottom deal briefly with Steve Freeman a the L.A. History conference, and I typically see him once or twice a year if I'm lucky. Next time I get a chance, I'll ask him about it, but I suspect my theory above is correct.

Jason
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JasonEngland said:
I've discussed the bottom deal briefly with Steve Freeman a the L.A. History conference, and I typically see him once or twice a year if I'm lucky. Next time I get a chance, I'll ask him about it, but I suspect my theory above is correct.

Jason
Click to expand...
Mr.England, although this is totally out of topic though I'm really interested in this. On the subject of Steve Freeman, is he going to publish ANYTHING in the upcoming DECADE? :confused:

I mean, I've been looking for anything under his name, and beside the Revelations tape and couple of items in magazines ( Heriophant .. etc ), I couldnt find anything. Did he think he could appear on a tape, get the attention of serious students by his SWE, and get away with it :p?

Downloading ...

~ Feras
 
Thanks Jason. I would be very interested to find out what Mr Freeman has to say about this. Over the last year or so I've been trying to go over Erdnase with an open mind, reading the words without allowing other people's views on the text cloud my thinking. I read the "up and slightly inwards" as a kind of diagonal movement simply pushing the card out, but I was a bit reluctant to discard the buckling action that I'd previously believed was the Erdnase method. The key point to me was the description of the one-handed bottom deal where he says that the bottom card is "sprung back", while the two-handed bottom is merely "pushed out". What do you think was meant by this, if he wasn't using "sprung back" to mean buckled?

Thanks very much for any information you can give on this.
 
TeeDee,

I believe that you've read more into Erdnase's description of the one-handed bottom than you should have. In other words, you've got the 1-hand bottom correct, but you've also (and incorrectly) used that description to define the 2-handed bottom! That's your mistake.

I believe the differences between the 2-hand and 1-handed bottoms are primarily differences in timing and momentum, not in mechanics.

I read his 1-hand bottom to mean: "Instead of "just" pushing the bottom card to the right (where the other hand gets involved in the extraction), pull back and then push it out to the right forcefully, to insure that it clears the bottom of the deck."

Is there a buckling action in the 1-hand version? I absolutely think so. But I also think there's a buckling action in the 2-hand version, although it's probably possible to diminish this buckling action through variant grip placements and experimentation with pressures.

I don't recall the Revelations tapes well enough to speak from memory, but I'd be willing to bet that both Vernon and Freeman had altered the original Erdnase grip slightly. Do you know if either of them have that claw-like first finger at the outer left corner? If not, then they've modified the grip, whether intentionally or not.

Once you start modifying the grip, then of course many things are possible. It's likely that they didn't mention the buckle because they didn't need it. And depending on the changes one makes to the original grip, maybe the left-finger buckle can be eliminated entirely.

Darwin Ortiz once showed me a way to extract the bottom card with a very small inward motion from the taking hand (in essence, a right-hand buckle). It's a great idea, but not one I've got any real time with. Assuming I haven't mis-remembered what Darwin told me, he'd be the best person to ask about that particular technique.

Jason
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks very much for your advice. Having just reread the one-hand bottom description, I still think it may be susceptible of both interpretations. However, I concede, I may have got over-zealous in trying to find something new in Erdnase and twisted the text to fit my theory. Oh, well, back to study...I still think I've got something on the Open Shift... Anyway, now I've got in the habit of dealing my Erdnase bottoms with no buckle it seems to be better because it takes less third finger movement, so I'll probably carry on as I am.

That idea from Mr Ortiz sounds interesting and I'll definitely have a play with it.

Thanks very much.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.